I played FB in high school, and the position has always been one of my favorite on the field. I am hoping that the influx of talent and the FB postition in the offseason means that we will FINALLY utilize a true FB in the offense. We as Pats fans love the blue collar guys, and a true FB would quickly become a fan favorite.

Sure we'll use an FB. Ball control was a big part of winning games for us when we won our super bowls. McDaniels coming back, the additions of Fiammetta and Larsen, as well as the 3rd TE Fells, indicates to me anyway that there will be more of a focus on running. Ridley and Vereen, if they do succeed, provide far more dynamic running potential than what we have had with the Sammie Morris, Antowain Smith, and BenJarvis Green-Ellis types. BB recognizes that the threat of Corey Dillon added a new dynamic to the Pats. He tried to get that back with Maroney. Now he's trying to do that with Ridley and Vereen. The FB and versatile tight ends are a vital part of that. It'll be a competition between Fiammetta and Larsen but one of them will be on the team.

I don't see a FB being used early in games because of how the O is run, but I hope they use them late in games. A FB can be a valuable tool that can add an extra yrd per carry as a lead blocker. Trying to close out games that extra yrd per carry can be huge. It makes a difference of 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 4. Of course there is so much more you can do in 3rd and 2 then 3rd and 4. That could mean the difference between getting a 1st or a 4th and 1 or 2. An extra 1st is another ~2:15 off the clock and we all know what that extra time means. So the way BB tried to pull in a FB late in the season and his obvious attempt to garner extra FB talent for training camp I think BB is putting together a close out games package.

Fullbacks are complete dinosaurs in this league. Don't want one, don't really need one. Maybe for some jumbo package goal line stuff, but between the 20s having one on the field is a waste of time.Posted by andrewmcintosh

You don't think adding an additional yrd+ per carry could have helped run out the clock in the last couple of SB's?

Dinosaurs or not, when you have the lead and absolutely need to run out clock at the end of a big game or you absolutely need a yrd then having that extra lead blocker who knows how to read the holes opening in the line could make all the difference in the world. FB's are still a need if you don't have a true #1 RB which the Pats don't have

A true FB? C'mon the Pats offense looks like something out of "Transformers" and may be even more so in '12 as they add a few pcs. coupled with the maturity of a few others....Correct me if I'm worng but Heath Evans struck me as the last "true" or conventional old school FB type. Today, Pats could line up three or four guys in that positon and drive opposing defenisve coordinators to wearing DEPENDS.

Multiple skill set players, some kinda obscure are researched, worked-out and chosen for a very good reason by the "Hooded" one and staff....Mad science indeed...

A competitive camp would be an udnerstatement and I for one can't wait for the season to start....Should be agreat one in the making....

In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : You don't think adding an additional yrd+ per carry could have helped run out the clock in the last couple of SB's? Dinosaurs or not, when you have the lead and absolutely need to run out clock at the end of a big game or you absolutely need a yrd then having that extra lead blocker who knows how to read the holes opening in the line could make all the difference in the world. FB's are still a need if you don't have a true #1 RB which the Pats don't havePosted by PatsEng

There are very few "pure" FBs around anymore, and I would be quite surprised if having a FB equates to 1 more ypc every touch. If that were the case then sign me up, but I seriously doubt it is. FBs give you almost zero positional flexibility, they are a liability on every play thats not a power lead. IMO there's just better personell packages to put out there, even if your intent is to run the ball. I've always felt that the key to good, efficient, running is the offensive line moreso than the FB or ball carrier. Good run blocking up front can let you get away with very pedestrian backs. So if anything I'd like to see more investment in the big uglies. I get your point though, and I think there will be a greater emphasis on running a bit more this season.

In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : There are very few "pure" FBs around anymore, and I would be quite surprised if having a FB equates to 1 more ypc every touch. If that were the case then sign me up, but I seriously doubt it is. FBs give you almost zero positional flexibility, they are a liability on every play thats not a power lead. IMO there's just better personell packages to put out there, even if your intent is to run the ball. I've always felt that the key to good, efficient, running is the offensive line moreso than the FB or ball carrier. Good run blocking up front can let you get away with very pedestrian backs. So if anything I'd like to see more investment in the big uglies. I get your point though, and I think there will be a greater emphasis on running a bit more this season.Posted by andrewmcintosh

Of course the OL is more important then an FB in the running game, it's silly to say otherwise. What that FB does is clear out the LB in gap assignment at the next level.

Yes FB's generally give an extra yrd per carry, mainly because of their specialty use. They are used to block out LB's and S's that are typically found in gap control and edge containment. Those LB's and S's alone prevent an extra yrd from being gained if not turning it into a lose. Now if the FB was used on every down this wouldn't be the case, but if you go back into film on short yrd situations when BJGE or Maroney had a lead blocker they typically gained 2-3yrds vs in short yrd situations being stuffed at the line or gaining a single yrd. This happened consistently. One reason might be because the FB is kept at full strength and has more power and push for a single play then the D.

Additionally, the FB's that BB currently has on the team aren't known for carrying the ball but are know for having good hands coming out of the backfield (think Evans). This does give them a multifaceted role then just as a lead blocker

In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : Of course the OL is more important then an FB in the running game, it's silly to say otherwise. What that FB does is clear out the LB in gap assignment at the next level. Yes FB's generally give an extra yrd per carry, mainly because of their specialty use. They are used to block out LB's and S's that are typically found in gap control and edge containment. Those LB's and S's alone prevent an extra yrd from being gained if not turning it into a lose. Now if the FB was used on every down this wouldn't be the case, but if you go back into film on short yrd situations when BJGE or Maroney had a lead blocker they typically gained 2-3yrds vs in short yrd situations being stuffed at the line or gaining a single yrd. This happened consistently. One reason might be because the FB is kept at full strength and has more power and push for a single play then the D. Additionally, the FB's that BB currently has on the team aren't known for carrying the ball but are know for having good hands coming out of the backfield (think Evans). This does give them a multifaceted role then just as a lead blockerPosted by PatsEng

Heath never had more than 10 catches in a season in NE, so I'm not quite sure where the versatility argument comes into play. Fullback is probably the least versitile skill position on offense, they're in the game to take on linebackers like you said, that's it. If what you are arguing for is a limited role i.e. goal line stuff, then we're on the same page. What I disagree with is the argument that the Fullback should become a staple part of the Patriots offensive packages or philosophy between the 20s. It's a waste of a position imo.

In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : Heath never had more than 10 catches in a season in NE, so I'm not quite sure where the versatility argument comes into play. Fullback is probably the least versitile skill position on offense, they're in the game to take on linebackers like you said, that's it. If what you are arguing for is a limited role i.e. goal line stuff, then we're on the same page. What I disagree with is the argument that the Fullback should become a staple part of the Patriots offensive packages or philosophy between the 20s. It's a waste of a position imo.Posted by andrewmcintosh

I guess the only argument I would have between the 20's if in short yardage plays, screens as an additional blocker, and when you are trying to run out the clock with power running. Short of that I wouldn't use them between the 20's but I would say that 10-20% of O snaps could use a FB in as an extra blocker given certain situations. That amount of snaps is more then most 4th RB's would naturally see and even 3rd RB's in the Pats system sometimes don't see that many snaps in a game, so I guess the question is would you rather have a specialist that fills that role more then say a G or LB trying to fill it or would you rather have that extra 4th RB sitting on the bench hoping Woodhead, Ridley, and/or Vereen doesn't get injured

In Response to Re: FB PLEASE! : I guess the only argument I would have between the 20's if in short yardage plays, screens as an additional blocker, and when you are trying to run out the clock with power running. Short of that I wouldn't use them between the 20's but I would say that 10-20% of O snaps could use a FB in as an extra blocker given certain situations. That amount of snaps is more then most 4th RB's would naturally see and even 3rd RB's in the Pats system sometimes don't see that many snaps in a game, so I guess the question is would you rather have a specialist that fills that role more then say a G or LB trying to fill it or would you rather have that extra 4th RB sitting on the bench hoping Woodhead, Ridley, and/or Vereen doesn't get injuredPosted by PatsEng

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm all in favor of more efficient running, I just don't like the "run for the sake of running" argument. Overwhelmingly, you score and win with the passing game now a days, it is what it is.